On Wednesday, March 26, 2014 10:12:36 PM Al Sweigart wrote:
> That's my point though: while in theory consensus is supposed to be more
> inclusive, over the last five years it's more often been a way for one or
> two people to use blocking as a nuclear option. This protects abusive
> people and excludes others who feel unsafe at the space. (See also: the
> overwhelming number of people joining Double Union who wouldn't touch
> Noisebridge with a ten foot pole)
>> We've been hearing the "ah, but it's not the TRUE way of consensus" for
> literally years. Maybe the reason we haven't found this utopian version of
> consensus is because it doesn't exist.
documentation's been linked and repeatedly ignored. that's your fault if
you've not yet familiarized yourself with the process and its tenets, after
all these years.